--On Thursday, 17 May, 2007 21:52 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't agree with the meaning I get from this statement. The
> problem is that the construct that ABNF calls "LWSP" causes
> problems in protocols that use it.
> This problem is independent of the name of the construct; the
> problem is in defining a grammar where the sequence
> <CRLF><CRLF> has a different meaning than <CRLF><SPACE><CRLF>.
>...
Interesting. I don't think that is a problem with the grammar,
and think it would be rather hard to define a grammar that would
not permit that situation. After all
<CRLF> Thing <SPACE><CRLF> could case similar problems if
some construction permitted it and defining a grammar that would
prohibit any <SPACE><CRLF> construction isn't easy in ABNF for
reasons that have nothing to do with LWSP.
Instead, I see the problem as using the grammar to define
situations equivalent to
LWSP [ optional-stuff ] CRLF
as compared to
LWSP AtLeastOneRequiredThing CRLF
or
[ LWSP optional-stuff ] CRLF
I don't see either of the latter as problematic.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
